Johnson v. Whirlpool Corporation

Filing 64

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 62 plaintiff's motion for extension of time be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff shall have until 10/27/2017 to file his response to defendant's motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/19/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 8 ROBERT JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 14 15 ORDER v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Defendant. 12 13 Case No. 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH Presently before the court is Johnson v. Whirlpool Corporation, case number 2:15-cv02425-JCM-CWH. On October 11, 2017, plaintiff Robert Johnson filed a motion to extend time to file a 16 response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 62). On October 17, 2017, 17 defendant Whirlpool Corporation filed a response. (ECF No. 63). 18 Plaintiff cites in support of his motion to extend time the statement in Ahanchian v. 19 Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010) that extensions of time should be liberally 20 granted in order to “effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits.” 21 (ECF No. 62); see 624 F.3d at 1258–59. Plaintiff alleges that counsel’s business related travel 22 during the week of October 16th will impede efforts to comply with current deadline of October 23 19, 2017. (ECF No. 62). Plaintiff cites counsel’s continued travel over the course of the next 24 few weeks to support an extension of fourteen business days to file a response. Id. 25 Plaintiff’s motion demonstrates good cause to support granting an extension of time to 26 file a response. An extension will further the judicial purpose of ensuring that the motion is 27 decided on the merits. See Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1258–59. Further, the motion was timely 28 filed and defendant will not be prejudiced by an extension. However, as defendant notes, 1 plaintiff’s requested extension length appears excessive, especially considering that plaintiff’s 2 motion does not discuss why counsel could not draft a response prior to October 16, 2017. (ECF 3 No. 63); see (ECF No. 62). The court will therefore grant plaintiff leave to file his response on 4 or before October 27, 2017. 5 Accordingly, 6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 62) 7 be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, consistent with the 8 foregoing. Plaintiff shall have until October 27th, 2017 to file his response to defendant’s 9 motion for summary judgment. 10 DATED THIS 19th day of October, 2017. 11 12 JAMES C. MAHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?